Team Paranoia strikes again

Jason Quick is one of the strongest NBA beat writers, partially because his hatred for the organization spurs him to dig up muck. Lucky the Blazers have been a laughingstock for the last three years, adding fuel to the fire. Both sides have had their victories, with Quick and John Canzano (another great pro) securing inside sources that led to a witch hunt in the organization when they brought detectives in to find the leaks. But I believe Quick also whiffed last summer when he wrote the team was calling a press conference to announce Marc Ivaroni as coach only for Nate McMillan to be hired instead, which the team openly mocked him for.

As to this story, the Blazers' response didn't surprise. Quick's blog was all over the NBA jumpsites because it was the biggest workout of the draft season thus far. But the way Quick talked about how he looked through the blinds, in my opinion, was just a clear F-you to the Blazers. It was on his blog, not in the paper, which just made it more personal. He could've gotten a lot more creative if he'd wanted to by describing how he got the information. He probably knew this would happen and looked forward to ripping the team for it.

The Blazers-Oregonian war that has been going on for years. Unlike in Washington where the Post-Redskins war has just added color to a rapid fanbase's appetite, what you have here is just fanbase that cares less and less about the only pro team in town, based on the attendance, and that probably isn't good for any side with the team for sale and the future uncertain.

 

I want to know why some people think it's unethical to look through the blinds. I have no problem with it. They put him in a room and he's just supposed to nap? While I realize this is just a pre-draft workout, isn't the whole premise of journalism to keep an eye open for what happens behind closed doors?

 

It's important to note from what Canzano says on his blog there wasn't anything special involved in "looking through the blinds" from the room people had been put in. Apparently they're pretty crappy and you can easily see what's going on through them - it's not like Quick did something special to allow that to occur. If you're a team and expect reporters not to report on things, it's up to you to make sure they can't see them. Since the Blazers have made such a big deal of this, it comes across as if they were looking for another thing to pick a fight about.

 

I'm sorry e4, but you must not be a beat writer.
There is always a time to give a fuck you to team you cover -- a player arrest, a failed drug test story based on sources, a coach is about to be fired, a team meeting where a coach rips the owners, etc. But it better be worth it.
Because so much of the reporter-organization relationship is based on trust, both ways. If they say a player is off limits to interview, he might actually come up to the reporters and talk... but the organizations trusts you won't quote him. And you trust the organization will help you in other ways. It's part of the deal.
The thing, Rufino, is that if they say the practice is closed, then you don't write about it, even if you see it.
I guess what I'm saying is, Quick must've thought it was worth it. I didn't realize this was such a huge draft story, but if it is, then I bet it is worth. Then I applaud him for him.

 

Blinds are there for a reason; doors are closed for a reason.

It seems pretty clear that the Blazers did not WANT the reporters giving their two cents on what happened in this private workout. They could have ensured it by locking the doors to the arena, but gave the reporters the courtesy of admittance inside. The courtesy was breached; the Blazers responded in kind.

I'm not quite sure what people aren't seeing. Certainly seems like a valid response to me.

 

I get that, but I also know that people will sometimes make poor decisions on what's kosher to report from a practice and what's not. If it's that high priority to you to keep something from being reported you need to make it harder for it to happen. Also, when a similar situation happened with the team I cover, they closed practices to the media for the rest of the week. That was fine. They didn't, however, put a big press release about it up on their website and act like the reporter in question had faxed their gameplan to the opposing coach. Clearly this was about staging a pissing match - likely from both sides.

 

then why don't you simply change the title of what you do for a living to public relations agent for team X? sounds a lot like what you do every day.

 

Come on, that's not what he's saying. Portland sounds like it's not a normal environment, but a normal beat-writing situation is built on a give-and-take relationship.

For example, the SID department at most schools asks that you not contact players directly in their dorm rooms or apartments, but rather go through an SID. Is it illegal to contact a student-athlete in his dorm? No, of course not. I'm a private citizen, he's a private citizen. It's a free country.

Still, most reporters follow that edict. If you're going to break that rule (and I'm sure most college reporters have at some point), it had better be for something big. In other words, pick your battles wisely.

It may be the case that Quick's relationship with the Trailblazers has apparently deteriorated to the point where that's no longer a consideration.

 

Dealing with SIDs at the college level and dealing with PR agents for teams -- or even PR firms...
Two different ballgames. Apples and broccoli.

 

You are becoming somewhat tiresome.

It is quite possible to be a sportswriter without being underhanded. And decisions are made every day vis-a-vis weighing the information received against the future value of the source.

The good news for you: I hear the National Enquirer is hiring.

 

[Come on, that's not what he's saying. Portland sounds like it's not a normal environment, but a normal beat-writing situation is built on a give-and-take relationship.

For example, the SID department at most schools asks that you not contact players directly in their dorm rooms or apartments, but rather go through an SID. Is it illegal to contact a student-athlete in his dorm? No, of course not. I'm a private citizen, he's a private citizen. It's a free country.

Still, most reporters follow that edict. If you're going to break that rule (and I'm sure most college reporters have at some point), it had better be for something big. In other words, pick your battles wisely.

It may be the case that Quick's relationship with the Trailblazers has apparently deteriorated to the point where that's no longer a consideration.
flaming - you might be surprised, but i disagree. The man said: "Because so much of the reporter-organization relationship is based on trust, both ways. If they say a player is off limits to interview, he might actually come up to the reporters and talk... but the organizations trusts you won't quote him. And you trust the organization will help you in other ways. It's part of the deal."

maybe i interpreted this wrong, but if you are dealing with an organization (not preps) it should never "trust" that you aren't going to be an investigative reporter. organizations should never "trust" that if you unearth, stumble across, or work your ass off to uncover a fact that isn't positive, and are the only source to have that knowledge, that you simply won't sweep the info under the rug. i get the idea this person would have turned a blind eye even if he would have been invited over to woods' house for a night of dog fighting.

also, if an adult talks to the media, s/he is on record. being best friends with the folks you cover is not "part of the deal." i worked with a guy many years ago who broke the randy johnson-ken griffey jr. hate each other story (it was a huge story in seattle, but it was a small tiff on the national radar) after an interview with johnson. well, a mariner official overheard the conversation and the organization asked the guy not to run with the story, but he did. the piece later gave background (partly) on why johnson wanted out of seattle so badly a few years later and why he started throwing games in his final half season to get the hell out of dodge. johnson told the national media one story of why he wanted out, but fans in seattle also knew many of his teammates hated his ass as well.

the point is, johnson was a grown man, who said something he shouldn't have. after the organization asked the writer not to go with the story, should he simply have winked at the collective mariner and never let the legitimate story see the light of day?

somewhere along the line, a lot of sports writers have come to the conclusion they aren't "real" journalists ... you know, people who aggressively look for facts and report them to readers because they feel as though it's an obligation in order to stay employed.

what's more, the guy said: "If they say a player is off limits to interview, he might actually come up to the reporters and talk... but the organizations trusts you won't quote him." so, i guess the question is, why are you even talking to the guy to begin with if that's going to be your approach. why is his recorder in the guy's grill if he knows he's not going to quote him. does he feel he, in some way, owes the athlete his unbridled attention or is the guy actually just a jock sniffer who wants nothing more than to be pals with these guys? why would you waste your time asking questions and quoting a "non-quote?"

i once became "cordial" with a second-tier nba player, even went to his house on occasion and had a few beers (not on work time) at times up until the point that one day he asked me to help the star of the team (a guy who now is a hall of famer, but who i didn't know outside the locker room) to help the guy move across town. hell, i find excuses to not help guys i've known all my life move their shit. visits to the guy's house and having a few cold ones immediately stopped.

as media, we will never have equal footing with professionals because of socioeconomics ... as media, we will never have equal footing with the exceptional collegiate athlete because of potential socioeconomics. we will never have equal footing, that is, other than in the locker room where athletes and media members are actually doing their jobs.

i equate not quoting an adult who is making statements fans of the team should know simply because "the organization asked me not to" as no different than a hungover professional athlete dogging it all night on defense because he didn't feel like showing up to work, either.

we're paid to find relevant, interesting information about what we cover, not regurgitate only the facts "the organization" wants the public to know. believe it or not, the world of sports has more than sunshine and puppydogs living inside its universe. say what you want about canzano and quick, but they're real journalists who are respected throughout the field. they are anything but ass puppets.

 

and you sir are a hack, who i'm sure has never ruffled a feather becase it would be too uncomfortable.